Thread: Tax the Rich

Originally Posted by earcutter

A loophole is an untended consequence of a tax provision that's... uh, usually poorly drafted. It's hardly a loophole when it does what it's supposed to do.
[/U]

David, that's the best definition of a loophole I've ever heard. BRAVO! Boy, those econ classes are sure paying off now!

Originally Posted by commiecat

Exactly. There are several high-end CEOs who opt to take a $1/yr. salary. They make their income off stock options which is motivation to keep the company in the right direction, and they're not subject to payroll tax. Yes they still pay tax on the stocks and options, but I believe it's much less than what the expected payroll tax would be at their level.

Warren Buffett, who is top-5 in net worth worldwide and a noted philanthropist, has been open about his opinion that he wants to pay more in taxes. We even introduced the "Buffett Rule" tax plan, which later became a proposed bill that would have affected people with an annual gross income of $1M or more. It was filibustered in the Senate.

The use of that type of loophole, receiving pay in stock options in lieu coin of the the realm, not only reduces the tax revenue the government should have got if they were paid like the poor girl working at Wally World raising two kids meaning the huge majority of taxpayers. It also causes these people to run a company looking to produce unsustainable short term quarterly profits to keep increasing the value of their stock options. Can you say restructuring, getting leaner and meaner and off shoring and so on as tools to accomplish this short term strategy. All the while enjoying all the benefits of the country they live in paying little to no taxes and having a good part in destroying that country's standard of living for a huge chunk of the working population. Now that is class warfare.

Bob

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

The Tea Party is often mislabeled as being "extreme" in its conservatism. One of their core beliefs is that we should have a Constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. Isn't that radical? Isn't that extreme?

No, I think it's just plain dumb. A good governance means the ability to run surpluses when the economy is good and deficits when it's bad, on the average should be balanced. This is so that the government can compensate for the insane fluctuations that the free market provides.
Because the fundamental role of the government is to maintain a properly functioning society.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

NOBODY in this country is making $100/yr.

What isn't fair about everyone paying the same percentage? Why is it fair to take more private property from someone else? Where this this mindset get started. Why does the government have the right to take private property from anyone?

The vast majority of this countries poor have cell phones and internet connections. The kind of poverty you are talking about doesn't exist unless the person has completely dropped out and is living in a cardboard box.

Yesterday a man was begging in front of the local Walgreens. I saw a woman give him a $10 gift card. What did he buy with it? A Spiderman toy.

Then hit me up for money as I left the store.

And one would think that the last presidential election results will teach you something. Yes, keep reinforcing the view that your side has nothing but contempt for anybody who is not in the lobbyist-hiring-class. See how many will vote for your principles next time around.

Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" The Law, by Frederic Bastiat is relevant to this topic and worth reading. I doubt the case could be stated any better.

I swore to myself that I wasn't going to reply to this type of thing, but here I go.......

A balanced budget is not dumb or a radical idea and it does not mean that you cannot have a surplus. Georgia where I live has that amendment and many years in the past we had a surplus though in the past few years we haven't been very good at it. I do agree that it can go a little either way, but it means that you cannot spend more than you take in.

The preamble to the Constitution states the role of government and there are 5 primary roles and they are:
To establish justice
insure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare and finally
secure the blessings of Liberty

No one in Washington is doing a very good job of any of those either with the exception of defense, I'll give them that much so far.

And, about that taking of private propert thing, Amendment 4 of the bill of rights says that the government cannot do that except for upon probable cause which implies that a law has been broken.

OK. No more from me, I am old enough to know better than to get into this. I think I hear a glass of Grouse calling me.

Will N.

It doesn't much matter how well written a law is. Even if it is black and white, as I've said before, once smart lawyers get a hold of the laws and get into court black and white turns to grey and then mud.

Besides, who writes our laws? Lobbyists mostly or staff people influenced by lobbyists.

The Tax codes are thousands of pages long and they could cut all that to probably a couple hundred pages and that would cover 95% of the population. The rest is for wealthy and businesses and corporations.

Originally Posted by honedright

Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" The Law, by Frederic Bastiat is relevant to this topic and worth reading. I doubt the case could be stated any better.

Wait a minute, are you trying to sell the blabbering of some long dead french fru-fru to real amerika?

Originally Posted by gugi

Wait a minute, are you trying to sell the blabbering of some long dead french fru-fru to real amerika?

Nah, I 'aint sellin nuffin. And "Real amerika" should really like the info 'cause it's FREEEEEEEE!

Originally Posted by honedright

Nah, I 'aint sellin nuffin. And "Real amerika" should really like the info 'cause it's FREEEEEEEE!

I'm sure you meant gratis